The Reef Ain't Dead

[Reefmagnet]

The word "may" proved useful when selling snake oil without fear of litigation way before junk climate related science became a thing.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Its Pico in the Azores..

I've never been there but it sure looks nice.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by StuM

So you don't believe in "4. A severely negative effect of climate change from anthropogenic CO2 emissions?"

You denier you!

3.5 is my personal level of certainty - there's definitely warming, we're doing it, it's having effect already. According to predictions, it could be seriously negative, and so far, we seem to be following those predictions, but I don't think anyone is "certain" of exactly where we'll net out.

[re Biden's comment about "existential" - I don't think CC will cause a human extinction, but it's conceivable that if we get the full predicted effect of AGW, it could cause famines, population displacement, conflicts for food, water and land and as such would actually be an existential threat to some countries and populations. Not to the boat-owning class, of course]

Now, besides AGW, there's MANY OTHER REASONS for significantly reducing our massive dependency on fossil fuels for energy. Where are you on those? Or do you deny those reasons as well?

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by boatman61

So who recognizes this place...

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Klyuchevskaya Sopka?

Originally Posted by boatman61

Nope.. Further South.. and the Atlantic not the Pacific...

Originally Posted by boatman61

Its Pico in the Azores..

I think Reef is correct.

Pico (7,713′) only occasionally has snow, and typically on just the upper half. Klyuchevskaya Sopka (15,580'), on Siberia's Kamchatka Peninsula, has snow year around. The vegetation in the foreground of each is different as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Pico
Images of Mt. Pico

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klyuchevskaya_Sopka
Images of Klyuchevskaya Sopka

Mt Pico, Azores

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by boatman61

So who recognizes this place...

https://www.pinterest.ca/pin/250020216786378098/

When did Russia annex the Azores?

[Tillikum]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...h=3adca53127ba

https://yle.fi/aihe/artikkeli/2009/1...script-english

https://reason.com/2009/11/25/climat...et-the-emails/

https://ar-ar.facebook.com/notes/sto.../263200679403/


And so on, and so on and so on.

Nine or ten years ago - who remembers now anyway?

The debate is at least amusing for the perpetual psychological profiles and group dynamics that become manifest to the observant. The DOS of human nature, unchanged since the dawn of recorded history, and still there under all the glossy hardware and glitzy user interfaces!

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Tillikum

And so on, and so on and so on.

Don't worry, the apologists wilb be coming out of the woodwork any minute to tell us that he climategate emails have been "taken out of context" and "there's nothing to see here". And then they will tell you that they were obtained illegally so they don't count anyway.

We've heard it all so many times from the usual suspects.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by StuM

As far as I am concerned, there is insufficient knowledge about natural climate variability to be able to determine the relative weight of various factors (primary doubts being the estimated ECS, which after 30 years of climate research still has a huge range, and previous instances of rapid warming and cooling)...

This study* narrows the likely range in “equilibrium climate sensitivity” (ECS) from 1.5C and 4.5C to between 2.6C and 4.1C, with a best estimate of slightly above 3C.

This narrowed range indicates that we will not be able to rely on a low sensitivity, to give us more time to tackle climate change. But the silver lining, is that their findings also suggest that very high ECS estimates are unlikely (less-than-5% chance that ECS is below 2C and a 6-18% chance it is above 4.5C).

“An Assessment of Earth's Climate Sensitivity Using Multiple Lines of Evidence” ~ by S. C. Sherwood et al
* ➥ https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....9/2019RG000678

The wide range of estimates, of climate sensitivity, is driven by uncertainties in climate feedbacks (positive & negative), including how water vapour, clouds, aerosols, surface reflectivity (albedo), ocean heat content, and other factors will change, as the Earth warms. Amplifying feedbacks that play a large role in ECS in climate models have not fully kicked in for current climate conditions. The strength of climate feedbacks, is expected to change, over time, with stronger feedbacks taking longer to emerge.

[GordMay]

Climate sensitivity is an important scientific uncertainty, and narrowing the range could have significant consequences, on what we specifically do, and how fast we do it.
One economic study, by Dr Chris Hope, suggests that the value of halving the uncertainty may be in the trillions of dollars, as it would allow the amount and speed of emissions reductions needed to be better determined.[1]
An ECS of closer to 2C would only extend the deadline for reaching net-zero emissions by a decade or so, according to a study by IIASA’s Dr Joeri Rogelj and colleagues.[2]

[1] “The $10 trillion value of better information about the transient climate response” !~ by Chris Hope
➥ https://royalsocietypublishing.org/d...rsta.2014.0429

[2] “Implications of potentially lower climate sensitivity on climate projections and policy” ~ by Joeri Rogelj et al
➥ https://iopscience.iop.org/article/1.../3/031003/meta

See also “Latest Daily CO2" (Mauna Loa) ➥ https://www.co2.earth/daily-co2

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by StuM

Don't worry, the apologists wilb be coming out of the woodwork any minute to tell us that he climategate emails have been "taken out of context" and "there's nothing to see here". And then they will tell you that they were obtained illegally so they don't count anyway.

We've heard it all so many times from the usual suspects.

Way to nurse an 11 yr old AND often disproven meme. Fyi, such conspiracy theories were getting more love in the covid threads, if you're hoping for a more receptive audience.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

it's conceivable that if we get the full predicted effect of AGW, it could cause famines, population displacement, conflicts for food, water and land and as such would actually be an existential threat to some countries and populations.

Read history much? Countless "conceivable" natural and man-made phenomena and events not only "could" cause the disasters and conflicts you list, but repeatedly did. It's the story of humankind and will continue, no matter how many people profess their personal "beliefs" when it comes to AGW. Just ask the Anasazi peoples of the American Southwest who are widely believed to have vanished as a result of changes to their climate (weather?). Or the present-day Uyghurs, who's genocidal persecution has nothing to do with climate but a much more historically deadly human-derived calamity, namely politics, religion, and the age-old human obsession with power and control.

Meanwhile, the single-largest reduction in CO2 and harmful atmospheric pollutants over the past decade has been produced from . . . wait for it . . . fossil fuels in the form of natural gas, and not so-called "renewables". History lessons can be rough for those full of conceit over their own existence, but fossil fuels will eventually be replaced for the same reason the internal combustion engine replaced the horse, namely as a result of technological innovation and simple economics. No amount of unfair and digressive taxes at the gas pump, frivolous lawsuits against the oil industry, int'l treaties, or virtue signaling one's hybrid or electric cars will change this. It will, however, create more political division, increase poverty, and get a lot of opportunistic and dangerously partisan people elected into positions of power.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by SailOar

I think Reef is correct.

Pico (7,713′) only occasionally has snow, and typically on just the upper half. Klyuchevskaya Sopka (15,580'), on Siberia's Kamchatka Peninsula, has snow year around. The vegetation in the foreground of each is different as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Pico
Images of Mt. Pico

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klyuchevskaya_Sopka
Images of Klyuchevskaya Sopka

Mt Pico, Azores

Seeing as the picture was taken by a friend from her house, she lives on the outskirts of Horta I doubt very much that Reef is correct..

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by StuM

Yep we keep on hearing people being given the derogatory epithet: "climate change deniers" or even "climate deniers"!

One at a time.
I don't think there are very many people who misunderstand this. These labels are an abbreviated way of referring to people who substantially reject the evidence for anthropogenic climate change. I am sorry if it might hurt someone's feelings but that is a trivial side issue.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Exile

Read history much? Countless "conceivable" natural and man-made phenomena and events not only "could" cause the disasters and conflicts you list, but repeatedly did. It's the story of humankind and will continue, no matter how many people profess their personal "beliefs" when it comes to AGW. Just ask the Anasazi peoples of the American Southwest who are widely believed to have vanished as a result of changes to their climate (weather?) ...

Current Climate Change Compared to Earlier Changes

The Earth has experienced many large climate changes in the past. However, current changes in climate are unusual for, at least, two reasons: Cause & Rate.
First, many lines of evidence demonstrate that these changes are primarily the result of human activities;
Second, these changes are occurring (and are projected to continue to occur) faster than many past changes in the Earth’s climate.
The largest temperature changes, of the past million years, are the glacial cycles, during which the global mean temperature changed by 4°C to 7°C, between ice ages, and warm interglacial periods (local changes were much larger, for example near the continental ice sheets). The data indicate that the global warming, at the end of an ice age, was a gradual process, taking about 5,000 years.

It is thus clear that the current rate of global climate change is much more rapid, and very unusual, in the context of past changes.

The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has reached a record high relative to more than the past half-million years, and has done so at an exceptionally fast rate. Current global temperatures are warmer than they have ever been during at least the past five centuries, probably even for more than a millennium. If warming continues unabated, the resulting climate change, within this century, would be extremely unusua,l in geological terms. Another unusual aspect of recent climate change is its cause: past climate changes were natural in origin, whereas most of the warming of the past 50 years is attributable to human activities.

When comparing the current climate change, to earlier, natural ones, three distinctions must be made.
First, it must be clear which variable is being compared: is it greenhouse gas concentration, or temperature (or some other climate parameter), and is it their absolute value, or their rate of change?
Second, local changes must not be confused with global changes. Local climate changes are often much larger than global ones, since local factors (e.g., changes in oceanic or atmospheric circulation) can shift the delivery of heat or moisture from one place to another and local feedbacks operate (e.g., sea ice feedback). Large changes in global mean temperature, in contrast, require some global forcing (such as a change in green-house gas concentration or solar activity).
Third, it is necessary to distinguish between time scales. Climate changes over millions of years can be much larger and have different causes (e.g., continental drift) compared to climate changes on a centennial time scale.

The main reason for the current concern, about climate change, is the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration (and some other greenhouse gases), which is very unusual for the Quaternary (about the last two million years). The concentration of CO2 is now known accurately for the past 650,000 years from antarctic ice cores. During this time, CO2 concentration varied between a low of 180 ppm during cold glacial times and a high of 300 ppm during warm interglacials.

Over the past century, it rapidly increased well out of this range, and is now ±415 ppm, higher than it has been in at least 800,000 years.

For comparison, the approximately 80-ppm rise in CO2 concentration, at the end of the past ice ages, generally took over 5,000 years.

Higher values than at present have only occurred many millions of years ago.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Seeing as the picture was taken by a friend from her house, she lives on the outskirts of Horta I doubt very much that Reef is correct..

You might want to verify your friend's claim. She might be a climate change denier or a QAnon believer. <laugh> Photos identical to yours are found on many web sites, most of which identify it as a Russian mountain. Here are a few. Or you can just look at photos of the two mountains and judge for yourself.

https://golondonadventures.co.uk/mee...st-wilderness/

https://www.pinterest.es/pin/436075176390356740/

https://www.reddit.com/r/woahdude/co...in_russia_pic/

https://wallpaperaccess.com/russian-landscape

St. Basil's Cathedral, Moscow, Russia - Interesting Places to Visit - Fire Elf - Best Vacation and Honeymoon Destinations